SMITH v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 980 [8 May 2018]

SMITH v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 980[8 May 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHECIV-2018-463-000047[2018] NZHC 980IN THE MATTER of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001BETWEEN GEOFFREY MARTIN (also known asGEOFFREY MARTIN SMITH)ApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 7 May 2018Appearances: Applicant in personCH Macklin and C Harvey for RespondentJudgment: 7 May 2018Reasons: 8 May 2018REASONS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD JThis judgment was delivered by me on 8 May 2018 at 3.00 pmPursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarThe application before the Court and the course of the hearing[1] On Friday 4 May 2018, an application purporting to be an application for awrit of habeas corpus under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 ("the Act"), was filed in thisRegistry of the Court. It sought the immediate discharge and release from custody anddetention of "Geoffrey Martin (who may be called by another name)." The intitulingof the application suggested that the applicant was being held in custody at RimutakaPrison. With the application was an unsworn document described as an affidavit insupport. It was purportedly signed by "Geoffrey-Martin" and "Geoffrey MartinSmith" over a seal reading:FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT COELUMSeal of William Henry[2] Consistently with s 9(3) of the Act, the Registrar arranged a fixture for thehearing of the application at 2.15pm yesterday, Monday 7 May 2018 and arranged forMr Smith to appear via audio-visual link from Rimutaka Prison.[3] Counsel for the respondent filed a notice of opposition, submissions inopposition to the application and a bundle of authorities on which they relied.Mr Smith said that copies of the submissions and only one of the supportingjudgments were delivered to him an hour before the hearing. I offered Mr Smith anadjournment of the hearing so that all of the material could be provided to him. Hedeclined that opportunity, so I read to him the grounds of opposition, which were thathe is lawfully detained at Rimutaka Prison awaiting sentence in the Manukau DistrictCourt on 1 June 2018 at 10.00 am.[4] Mr Smith said he heard what I had said. He also confirmed to me that he didnot oppose an order substituting the Chief Executive of the Department of Correctionsas the correct respondent in place of the Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison. An orderto that effect was made accordingly.[5] Mr Smith asked me to hear representations on his behalf from a man namedWilliam Henry who was sitting in the body of the Court, behind counsel, with anotherunidentified person. Mr Smith told me he had given Mr Henry power of attorney andthat Mr Henry had signed the application and the supporting unsworn document onhis behalf.[6] After I heard from Mr Henry, briefly, it was apparent that he was not in aposition to provide the Court with relevant and helpful information or submissions.He sought first to make an inquiry about counsel for the respondent under s 5 of theSecret Commissions Act 1910. When I told him the Court did not need to hear aboutthat, Mr Henry said:Well, I believe they've come in here to represent the two parties, thatthey're representing one party. Now we have a document here, acertificate, from Ministry of Births Deaths and Marriages – andapproved by Foreign Affairs in New Zealand, to show that the livingperson, Geoffrey Martin, is a separate entity to the entity that they arecoming here to represent, which is the birth certificate, which is atrading entity – is that not right? We are operating outside NewZealand, this is not New Zealand rules, this is a foreign territory. Thesepeople here are representing – they've split the titles, we have now – orwhat we are now trying to do is repatriate .[7] At that point, I interrupted Mr Henry and told him that I would not hear fromhim further and that he should resume his seat. When he refused to do so I directedhim to leave the courtroom and I adjourned the hearing briefly.[8] When the hearing resumed, Mr Henry was absent. I addressed Mr Smithdirectly and heard from him about the further grounds of his application for a writ ofhabeas corpus.[9] After hearing from Mr Smith, I refused the application and said I would givemy reasons in writing. These are my reasons.Facts found by the Court on enquiry[10] As required by s 14(2) of the Act, I enquired into the matters of fact and lawclaimed to justify Mr Smith's detention. Certified copies of birth certificates whichwere attached to the application identified the person on whose behalf the applicationhad been filed as Geoffrey Martin Smith, a male born at Ngaruawahia on 18 August1953.[11] Court records obtained by the Registry on enquiry established that, in theManukau District Court on 19 May 2016, Mr Smith pleaded guilty to onerepresentative charge of importing a Class B controlled drug, Gamma-butyrolactone(GBL) into New Zealand (CRN15092500393), and one charge of attempting topossess a Class B controlled drug (GBL) for supply (CRN15092500312). Havingbeen convicted on these charges, Mr Smith is liable to a maximum penalty of 14 years'imprisonment1 and 7 years' imprisonment2 respectively.[12] Mr Smith subsequently applied for leave to vacate his pleas. That applicationwas called before Judge S Moala on 8 March 2017 but, before dealing with it, JudgeMoala ruled against a challenge by Mr Smith to the jurisdiction of the District Courtto deal with him on the charges to which he had pleaded guilty.3 On 6 July 2017, theCourt of Appeal declined an application by Mr Smith for leave to appeal against theDistrict Court Judge's decision as to jurisdiction.4 In that judgment, the Court ofAppeal referred to similar challenges to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courtshaving "been uniformly dismissed by the courts."5[13] It appears that Mr Smith failed to appear for sentencing on the charges to whichhe had pleaded guilty and a warrant for his arrest was issued on 21 July 2017. Thewarrant was executed on 27 December 2017. On 28 December 2017, Mr Smithappeared in the District Court at Hamilton. He was refused bail by Judge RH Riddelland remanded in custody to appear for sentence in the Manukau District Court on22 January 2018.6[14] The sentencing did not occur on 22 January 2018 and Judge IM Malosi issueda warrant to detain Mr Smith in the Spring Hill Corrections Facility until28 March 2018. On 28 March 2018, Judge Moala remanded Mr Smith to appear inthe District Court at Manukau for sentencing on 1 June 2018 and issued a furtherwarrant ("the March warrant") to detain him at Spring Hill Corrections Facility untilthe sentencing date. He is currently held at Rimutaka Prison pursuant to that warrant.1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(b).2 Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(b).3 R v Smith [2017] NZDC 4801 at [2].4 Smith v R [2017] NZCA 288.5 At [5].6 R v Smith [2017] NZDC 29487.[15] The March warrant and the two warrants which preceded it show that thecharges in respect of which they were issued have the CRN numbers shown on thecharge notices on which Mr Smith's guilty pleas are recorded.Mr Smith's application for a writ of habeas corpus[16] Mr Smith said he verified the contents of the unsworn document supportinghis application for a writ of habeas corpus. I accepted that document as setting out thegrounds upon which the application is made. In its operative part, it reads:I, Geoffrey-Martin the immoral living soul created in the image of God withthe trinity of body spirit and soul with the Wairau and breath of life, in myproper sui juris capacity hereinafter referred to as PETITIONER do herebyswear by Almighty God that I am of majority age and competent to testify, andthat the truths and facts contained herein are accurate, complete and notmisleading (including by omission) in any respect; so help me God.1. The Petitioner says that the printout of my born record shows that thePetitioner was given the names Geoffrey-Martin (See Annexure "A");and2. That by registration of my born details an organisation was created;and3. That a Birth Certificate 1953107218 was issued for that organisation(See Annexure "B"); and4. The Birth Certificate being indicia of a Corporation/transmitting-utility or other creature of commerce trading in the public whileremaining undischarged has through its Guardians, Officers,Administrators Agents or assigns by mischievous, deceitful, obscureand forceful methods induced the Petition to become security for thecommercial activities carried on in its name; and5. The Petition has now authenticated the printout and the attachedCertificate (A) shows the names given as Geoffrey-Martin; and6. That the attached Authenticated Birth Certificate shows thecorporation trading as Geoffrey Martin SMITH: and7. Does thou Statute of Westminster the first 1275 not say, For themaintaining of Peace and Justice. First the King willeth andcommandeth, that the peace of Holy Church and of the land, be wellkept and maintained in all points, and that common right be done toall, as well poor as rich, without respect of persons; and8. That the continued detention of Petitioner as surety for the PERSON,SMITH Geoffrey Martin without due process is a breach of the Ruleof Law, S.98(2) Crimes Act 1961 and his substantive rights.[17] Section 98 of the Crimes Act 1961 proscribes dealing in slaves.[18] Mr Smith said, among other things, that the charges he faced had beendismissed by Judge McElreaback in August and also Lord Stewart dismissed and discharged them as well.And you're saying that there is a legal warrant, it's not legal because the CRInumber which it relies on is not lawful – together with the name, together withthe date of birth – that's not me. I'm Geoffrey Martin, and the two documentsprove that.[19] I explained to Mr Smith that the court documents showed his name as"Geoffrey Martin Smith" and they identify him as having been born on 18 August1953. Mr Smith said:That's correct, that's the person – that's the corporation ... And the Secretary ofAmerica authenticated that I'm a living being registered in America, so all the law that‒ and the case law that's been produced by counsel – no argument whatsoever withthem. It applies to New Zealand and that's not me. So your CRI number and yourpetition or warrant to detain by the Judge is false and incorrect on a number of things:(a) I'm not a New Zealander; (b) the CRI numbers and the name which he relies onand the date of birth don't pertain to me, together with Lord Stewart discharged anddismissed those, together with Judge McElrea dismissed. So we've got a point ofdouble-jeopardy here as well.[20] After I had explained to Mr Smith that the criminal record numbers on thewarrant under which he was detained matched the numbers of the charges to which hewas recorded as having pleaded guilty, he said:That is incorrect. Those charges were never put to me in May the 16th. JudgeMcElrea dismissed the CRI number ending 1104 on the 2nd of August in thePapakura Court and said I was free to go. Then Judge Moala got involved andissued a warrant because I supposedly failed to appear when I wasn't orderedto appear, I was free to go. And then the new CRI numbers were created andon the 17th of May 2017 or whatever that date was, there was no charges putto me. I did never plead guilty at all, and I have had no disclosure or anythingon that CRI number; and, I'm sorry, I believe it is deliberate deceit. And thenafter that, in April or May – and I'm going on memory, Lord Stewart dismissedand discharged both those CRI numbers as well, and that has been served onthe Court and the Crown about 20 times now and at no stage had they rebutted.So by law unrebutted claims stands as the truth, they've been served threetimes, there has been no rebuttal. That is a false warrant of arrest – beingdetained.[21] Mr Smith told me that the person he referred to as "Lord Stewart" is:a common law judge and a JP from Tauranga, who was appointed by thecommon law Court to have a hearing for which the Crown and Judge Moalawere invited to attend and they chose not to. So Lord Stewart gave the orderand discharged and dismissed [the charges].[22] Mr Smith confirmed that he had appeared before Judge Riddell on28 December 2017 and, although he denied he had applied for bail, that he had beenremanded in custody until 22 January 2018 when he was to appear in the District Courtat Manukau. I have seen a copy of Judge Riddell's notes of the hearing on28 December 2017 in which she records that Mr Smith applied for bail and that it wasdeclined.7[23] Mr Smith confirmed also that he had appeared in the District Court at Manukauon 22 January 2018 and was remanded in custody by Judge Malosi to appear on 28March 2018, and that he appeared before Judge Moala on 28 March 2018 and wasremanded in custody to appear on 1 June 2018 for sentence.[24] There is no merit in Mr Smith's application for a writ of habeas corpus andI refused it, for these reasons:(a) After an enquiry into the matters of fact and law claimed to justifyMr Smith's detention, I am satisfied that the warrant dated28 March 2018 under which Mr Smith is detained is lawful.(b) The application is, in effect, an application for bail and the Court isprecluded from considering it by s 14(2)(b) of the Act which providesthat the Court is not entitled to call into question a ruling as to bail bya court of competent jurisdiction.(c) To the extent that Mr Smith's grounds for the application involve achallenge to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts, a similar7 R v Smith [2017] NZDC 29487 at [1] and [4].argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Smith v R8 when itdealt with the appeal against Judge Moala's ruling on jurisdiction inMarch 2017. I am satisfied that an application for the issue of a writ ofhabeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering theallegations made by Mr Smith.9(d) The grounds set out in the document supporting the application and inthe submissions made by Mr Smith and, on his behalf, by Mr Henry arenonsensical gibberish, making the application an abuse of the processof the Court.[25] After I informed Mr Smith that his application was refused, he said he wishedto challenge the warrant under which he was detained and would seek furtherinformation. I told him that he had had a right of appeal against the decision to remandhim in custody to 1 June 2018 and that he was entitled to apply to the District Courtfor information about the charges, but that he could not challenge the District Court'sorders by bringing another habeas corpus application.[26] I direct the Registrar of any registry of this Court in which Mr Smith, or anyonepurporting to act on his behalf, seeks to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus,at any time between the date of this judgment and the date on which Mr Smith issentenced for his offending, that the application shall not be accepted for filing withoutthe leave of a Judge of this Court.[27] Mr Macklin and Mr Harvey worked diligently after the papers were served onthe Crown on Friday and provided the Court with comprehensive and relevantauthorities in opposition. I am grateful to them for their prompt assistance.............................................Toogood J8 Smith v The Queen [2017] NZCA 288 at [5]. See also Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10 at [2]; Phillipsv R [2013] NZCA 580 at [3]; and R v Mitchell CA68/04, 23 August 2004 at [14].9 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1A)(b).